A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

evidence of seizure.

A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant 1) rather than delivering a philophone to D, the Defendant 1 laid the Defendant a philophone and brought about 0.2g of H’s philophone on his own (crime 1 in the case of 2016No. 5207). (2) The Defendant merely delivered a philophone to D and received 60,000 won as a car expense when it delivered it to D (crime 1 in the case of 207 No. 5207). Thus, the Defendant did not sell a philophone (crime 2, 3.3 of the case of 2016 No. 5207). 3) The lower court’s judgment that held that the Defendant’s 20th of the case of 20th of the case of 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 2nd of the philophone, which was administered by dilution the philophone, and that 4th of the 20th of the case of the 20th of the sentencing.

2) The sentence of the second instance judgment of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the credibility of the statement made by D, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, is insufficient and acceptable, even if it is sufficiently and sufficiently acceptable.

It is difficult to see that there was a confession of this part of the facts charged from the Defendant’s investigative agency to the first trial date in the original trial. The Defendant was a co-defendant in the

After the judgment on D was rendered first, it commenced to deny this part of the facts charged from the date of examination of D.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is just, since the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he delivered a phiphone to D, such as the facts charged in this case, and the judgment of the court below is just.